Which distance was near zero in 2010, btw... Even with the parts moving and a clear second driver (see Silverstone and Turkey respectively)You can discard the other years IMO, the die was cast and the younger, fairer chosen boy was established.

So does that mean Ricciardo was chosen in 2014? Over their existing x4 champ?

Probably a more 'level' battle. Ricciardo was cheaper and better. They let them go at it and Vettel showed he wasn't that good and couldn't be bothered after a four year feast and a car that was suddenly not the best... all details that are not so good traits, from the point of view of a team manager...

So why is that different for Webber/Vettel?

Sorry, my mistake, I had completely forgotten to add an important item in my list of conditions than made Ricciardo very different to Webber: He was the younger gun. A long term prospect. Better, as it was demonstrated, in a way. And cheaper. It is only all of these together that fit what we know about the 'Red Bull philosophy', imprecise as this expression would be. If you follow my drift.

But, Zoue, coming back to the main argument, it's quite difficult to argue that there was barely anything between Vettel and Webber in 2010... Not only that, but Red Bull itself sacrificed their better placed driver in the last race of the year, just to make Alonso react to him. Webber, AHEAD of Vettel in the standings at that final race in Abu Dhabi, was used as a mere bait. That was ridiculous and amazing. Even more amazingly, Ferrari fell for it. But it stands to reason to assume the inconvenient fact that Red Bull had been playing favourites all season long, played them that race, and played them for the duration of their partnership.

And yes, that changed once they had a new, younger driver, probably better, and it stands to reason, much cheaper.

Which distance was near zero in 2010, btw... Even with the parts moving and a clear second driver (see Silverstone and Turkey respectively)You can discard the other years IMO, the die was cast and the younger, fairer chosen boy was established.

So does that mean Ricciardo was chosen in 2014? Over their existing x4 champ?

Probably a more 'level' battle. Ricciardo was cheaper and better. They let them go at it and Vettel showed he wasn't that good and couldn't be bothered after a four year feast and a car that was suddenly not the best... all details that are not so good traits, from the point of view of a team manager...

So why is that different for Webber/Vettel?

Sorry, my mistake, I had completely forgotten to add an important item in my list of conditions than made Ricciardo very different to Webber: He was the younger gun. A long term prospect. Better, as it was demonstrated, in a way. And cheaper. It is only all of these together that fit what we know about the 'Red Bull philosophy', imprecise as this expression would be. If you follow my drift.

But, Zoue, coming back to the main argument, it's quite difficult to argue that there was barely anything between Vettel and Webber in 2010... Not only that, but Red Bull itself sacrificed their better placed driver in the last race of the year, just to make Alonso react to him. Webber, AHEAD of Vettel in the standings at that final race in Abu Dhabi, was used as a mere bait. That was ridiculous and amazing. Even more amazingly, Ferrari fell for it. But it stands to reason to assume the inconvenient fact that Red Bull had been playing favourites all season long, played them that race, and played them for the duration of their partnership.

And yes, that changed once they had a new, younger driver, probably better, and it stands to reason, much cheaper.

well, Vettel got 10 poles to Webber's 5 and in the remaining four races he led Webber 3-1 in qualifying, so I'd say there was a noticeable gap between them in qualifying at least. But yes, during the season their results were comparable, but against that it must be said that Vettel had two additional car related retirements, so even there his average points per race was much better. Finally, even the most die-hard Webber fan should acknowledge that Abu Dhabi, and the title fight, could have ended very differently if only Webber hadn't made such a pig's ear of qualifying. In his own words, "I would have liked to be further up, but I couldn't get the pace...I haven't helped things today." If Webber was used as bait - and I'm not saying he was - he only has himself to blame for putting himself in that position. The team had to ensure a Red Bull driver won and Webber wasn't making it easy for them to do that.

In short, there is zero evidence that if Webber had made use of the fact that he had the best car on the grid Red Bull wouldn't have supported his title challenge. Webber lost that title all on his own and vettel simply did a better job.

As to the beginning of your post, surely you can see how one-sided it is to say that Vettel beat Webber because of team favouritism, but lost to Ricciardo because the latter was better?

Not only that, but Red Bull itself sacrificed their better placed driver in the last race of the year, just to make Alonso react to him. Webber, AHEAD of Vettel in the standings at that final race in Abu Dhabi, was used as a mere bait. That was ridiculous and amazing. Even more amazingly, Ferrari fell for it. But it stands to reason to assume the inconvenient fact that Red Bull had been playing favourites all season long, played them that race, and played them for the duration of their partnership.

I'm sorry, but you are having a laugh with this statement. Did you miss the part that Vettel qualified on pole in AD and Webber only 5th? Webber was ahead in points at that point, which is a true statement and that's about it. But on race day in AD, how would you put him ahead of Vettel, Hamilton, Button, etc.? Alonso demonstrated how frustratingly difficult it was to overtake in the track that day. Having both Renaults on fresh engines in front of them, they were never going to get past, let alone the Maccas up the road.

And RB didn't use him as bait, if I remember correctly he was struggling for grip and brushed the armco at one point. He had to come in at that point as he began struggling.

So does that mean Ricciardo was chosen in 2014? Over their existing x4 champ?

Probably a more 'level' battle. Ricciardo was cheaper and better. They let them go at it and Vettel showed he wasn't that good and couldn't be bothered after a four year feast and a car that was suddenly not the best... all details that are not so good traits, from the point of view of a team manager...

So why is that different for Webber/Vettel?

Sorry, my mistake, I had completely forgotten to add an important item in my list of conditions than made Ricciardo very different to Webber: He was the younger gun. A long term prospect. Better, as it was demonstrated, in a way. And cheaper. It is only all of these together that fit what we know about the 'Red Bull philosophy', imprecise as this expression would be. If you follow my drift.

But, Zoue, coming back to the main argument, it's quite difficult to argue that there was barely anything between Vettel and Webber in 2010... Not only that, but Red Bull itself sacrificed their better placed driver in the last race of the year, just to make Alonso react to him. Webber, AHEAD of Vettel in the standings at that final race in Abu Dhabi, was used as a mere bait. That was ridiculous and amazing. Even more amazingly, Ferrari fell for it. But it stands to reason to assume the inconvenient fact that Red Bull had been playing favourites all season long, played them that race, and played them for the duration of their partnership.

And yes, that changed once they had a new, younger driver, probably better, and it stands to reason, much cheaper.

well, Vettel got 10 poles to Webber's 5 and in the remaining four races he led Webber 3-1 in qualifying, so I'd say there was a noticeable gap between them in qualifying at least. But yes, during the season their results were comparable, but against that it must be said that Vettel had two additional car related retirements, so even there his average points per race was much better. Finally, even the most die-hard Webber fan should acknowledge that Abu Dhabi, and the title fight, could have ended very differently if only Webber hadn't made such a pig's ear of qualifying. In his own words, "I would have liked to be further up, but I couldn't get the pace...I haven't helped things today." If Webber was used as bait - and I'm not saying he was - he only has himself to blame for putting himself in that position. The team had to ensure a Red Bull driver won and Webber wasn't making it easy for them to do that.

In short, there is zero evidence that if Webber had made use of the fact that he had the best car on the grid Red Bull wouldn't have supported his title challenge. Webber lost that title all on his own and vettel simply did a better job.

As to the beginning of your post, surely you can see how one-sided it is to say that Vettel beat Webber because of team favouritism, but lost to Ricciardo because the latter was better?

I am not sure Zoue. It may be you're right... I am not saying exactly that for sure he beat him because of favouritism. I am only saying that has to be taken into consideration. There are too many clues pointing that way.

It is difficult for me to get past the Istanbul and Silverstone incidents and not see favouritism. Even less so knowing what we know about Red Bull and its driver politics. At Abu Dhabi, the leading driver should have merited, at least, to have been given a fair chance to win the Championship.

Regarding relative points and performance, I guess you didn't count, for instance, the points Webber did not get in Turkey thanks to Vettel's mistake. Did you?

I am not sure Zoue. It may be you're right... I am not saying exactly that for sure he beat him because of favouritism. I am only saying that has to be taken into consideration. There are too many clues pointing that way.

It is difficult for me to get past the Istanbul and Silverstone incidents and not see favouritism. Even less so knowing what we know about Red Bull and its driver politics. At Abu Dhabi, the leading driver should have merited, at least, to have been given a fair chance to win the Championship.

Regarding relative points and performance, I guess you didn't count, for instance, the points Webber did not get in Turkey thanks to Vettel's mistake. Did you?

Probably a more 'level' battle. Ricciardo was cheaper and better. They let them go at it and Vettel showed he wasn't that good and couldn't be bothered after a four year feast and a car that was suddenly not the best... all details that are not so good traits, from the point of view of a team manager...

So why is that different for Webber/Vettel?

Sorry, my mistake, I had completely forgotten to add an important item in my list of conditions than made Ricciardo very different to Webber: He was the younger gun. A long term prospect. Better, as it was demonstrated, in a way. And cheaper. It is only all of these together that fit what we know about the 'Red Bull philosophy', imprecise as this expression would be. If you follow my drift.

But, Zoue, coming back to the main argument, it's quite difficult to argue that there was barely anything between Vettel and Webber in 2010... Not only that, but Red Bull itself sacrificed their better placed driver in the last race of the year, just to make Alonso react to him. Webber, AHEAD of Vettel in the standings at that final race in Abu Dhabi, was used as a mere bait. That was ridiculous and amazing. Even more amazingly, Ferrari fell for it. But it stands to reason to assume the inconvenient fact that Red Bull had been playing favourites all season long, played them that race, and played them for the duration of their partnership.

And yes, that changed once they had a new, younger driver, probably better, and it stands to reason, much cheaper.

well, Vettel got 10 poles to Webber's 5 and in the remaining four races he led Webber 3-1 in qualifying, so I'd say there was a noticeable gap between them in qualifying at least. But yes, during the season their results were comparable, but against that it must be said that Vettel had two additional car related retirements, so even there his average points per race was much better. Finally, even the most die-hard Webber fan should acknowledge that Abu Dhabi, and the title fight, could have ended very differently if only Webber hadn't made such a pig's ear of qualifying. In his own words, "I would have liked to be further up, but I couldn't get the pace...I haven't helped things today." If Webber was used as bait - and I'm not saying he was - he only has himself to blame for putting himself in that position. The team had to ensure a Red Bull driver won and Webber wasn't making it easy for them to do that.

In short, there is zero evidence that if Webber had made use of the fact that he had the best car on the grid Red Bull wouldn't have supported his title challenge. Webber lost that title all on his own and vettel simply did a better job.

As to the beginning of your post, surely you can see how one-sided it is to say that Vettel beat Webber because of team favouritism, but lost to Ricciardo because the latter was better?

I am not sure Zoue. It may be you're right... I am not saying exactly that for sure he beat him because of favouritism. I am only saying that has to be taken into consideration. There are too many clues pointing that way.

It is difficult for me to get past the Istanbul and Silverstone incidents and not see favouritism. Even less so knowing what we know about Red Bull and its driver politics. At Abu Dhabi, the leading driver should have merited, at least, to have been given a fair chance to win the Championship.

Regarding relative points and performance, I guess you didn't count, for instance, the points Webber did not get in Turkey thanks to Vettel's mistake. Did you?

In case you missed my post above Zero, what is this unfair chance that Webber got at Abu Dhabi? It's the second time you mention it and there's nothing to suggest that it wasn't a fair race for him.

Thank you for the interest. Yes, the thread did seem to take a different turn there for a while.

Right now I'm in a very busy time in my business. Writing a considered and detailed reply is very time consuming and I don't have that luxury right now. If this thread still has signs of life by the time I get some free hours back, I'll be sure to give a considered response.

I do thank Exediron and Siao7 for their sober discussions. I've been banned twice from the Autosport forum because some mods think the ban button is a disagree button. It's nice to have a contrarian point of view embraced and responded to properly for a change.

Thank you for the interest. Yes, the thread did seem to take a different turn there for a while.

Right now I'm in a very busy time in my business. Writing a considered and detailed reply is very time consuming and I don't have that luxury right now. If this thread still has signs of life by the time I get some free hours back, I'll be sure to give a considered response.

I do thank Exediron and Siao7 for their sober discussions. I've been banned twice from the Autosport forum because some mods think the ban button is a disagree button. It's nice to have a contrarian point of view embraced and responded to properly for a change.

Thank you for the interest. Yes, the thread did seem to take a different turn there for a while.

Right now I'm in a very busy time in my business. Writing a considered and detailed reply is very time consuming and I don't have that luxury right now. If this thread still has signs of life by the time I get some free hours back, I'll be sure to give a considered response.

I do thank Exediron and Siao7 for their sober discussions. I've been banned twice from the Autosport forum because some mods think the ban button is a disagree button. It's nice to have a contrarian point of view embraced and responded to properly for a change.

You won't get banned here for disagreeing with each other, reasoned debate makes a good forum.

I remember seeing the emergence of Schumi in the early nineties and it was clear he was a special talent. No mistakin'it. And then, as another poster has already described, the entire star-studded eighties generation suddenly retired/died. It left MS out alone to battle the likes of Damon Hill, whom I really like, but is not a super-top driver, Irvine, Berger, Barrichello, Coulthard and Häkkinen. None of them can compare to the likes of Piquet, Mansell, Prost and Senna, whom had to battle one another for most of their careers.

Then, of course, there's the small issue of his antics while driving, which really diminish his figure.

I have said before that MS reminds me a little (or viceversa) of Valentino Rossi. A planet-size talent that one can not really place that high because of the lack of competition faced during most of his career (Biaggi and Gibernau having been the high points of his title winning gold era...) And then there's the small issue of his antics on road...

Both had it a little too was with their title sprees. Even Vettel whom I do not rate at MS level by a long stretch, had Alonso to contend with in his four years in a superdominant car. Schumi had to face Hill Irvine Hakkinen and Barrichello, mainly.

I have the impression I would rate MS higher with a few less titles and race wins, but better competition. But I can not be sure. In the end, little he could do there.

But it is true that both Schumi and Rossi had it much tougher (or so it seems) once a new outstanding generation appeared, got the equipment and the experience.

So, not taking anything away from anyone, and clear as it is that MS is legendary and optimised his circumstance, I tend to agree Alonso to be a better talent, a tougher rival. And also a much cleaner and fairer driver on the road.

It should probably be taken into consideration not only Massa's personal experience on the issue at hand, but two circumstances that would probably help sway his opinion in Schumi's favor once he has left the sport: first, it is well known that Massa appreciates MS personally, having regarded him frequently as a friend and mentor, someone of whom he'll tend to speak well naturally; and second, and please everybody take this in a good stride, Schumi's condition would probably weigh in any judgement, and I would assume in his favor. Both colouring circumstances, added to his personal experience, lead me to deduct (perhaps better, assume, or imagine) that for Massa it is not even as close as he explains. Hence his clear response.

I don't think any of his other points are too polemic, either.

We'll have to wait for his opinions on the same issue to a German paper and to a British paper respectively... (-: Maybe some of the emphasis he expressed comes from his desire to make a small, tiny concession to the local hero. Mind you, I think this would only impact in his opinion up to a certain extent: not so much the entire ranking, but the way that ranking is expressed, detailed, put forward...

I remember seeing the emergence of Schumi in the early nineties and it was clear he was a special talent. No mistakin'it. And then, as another poster has already described, the entire star-studded eighties generation suddenly retired/died. It left MS out alone to battle the likes of Damon Hill, whom I really like, but is not a super-top driver, Irvine, Berger, Barrichello, Coulthard and Häkkinen. None of them can compare to the likes of Piquet, Mansell, Prost and Senna, whom had to battle one another for most of their careers.

Then, of course, there's the small issue of his antics while driving, which really diminish his figure.

I have said before that MS reminds me a little (or viceversa) of Valentino Rossi. A planet-size talent that one can not really place that high because of the lack of competition faced during most of his career (Biaggi and Gibernau having been the high points of his title winning gold era...) And then there's the small issue of his antics on road...

Both had it a little too was with their title sprees. Even Vettel whom I do not rate at MS level by a long stretch, had Alonso to contend with in his four years in a superdominant car. Schumi had to face Hill Irvine Hakkinen and Barrichello, mainly.

I have the impression I would rate MS higher with a few less titles and race wins, but better competition. But I can not be sure. In the end, little he could do there.

But it is true that both Schumi and Rossi had it much tougher (or so it seems) once a new outstanding generation appeared, got the equipment and the experience.

So, not taking anything away from anyone, and clear as it is that MS is legendary and optimised his circumstance, I tend to agree Alonso to be a better talent, a tougher rival. And also a much cleaner and fairer driver on the road.

It should probably be taken into consideration not only Massa's personal experience on the issue at hand, but two circumstances that would probably help sway his opinion in Schumi's favor once he has left the sport: first, it is well known that Massa appreciates MS personally, having regarded him frequently as a friend and mentor, someone of whom he'll tend to speak well naturally; and second, and please everybody take this in a good stride, Schumi's condition would probably weigh in any judgement, and I would assume in his favor. Both colouring circumstances, added to his personal experience, lead me to deduct (perhaps better, assume, or imagine) that for Massa it is not even as close as he explains. Hence his clear response.

I don't think any of his other points are too polemic, either.

We'll have to wait for his opinions on the same issue to a German paper and to a British paper respectively... (-: Maybe some of the emphasis he expressed comes from his desire to make a small, tiny concession to the local hero. Mind you, I think this would only impact in his opinion up to a certain extent: not so much the entire ranking, but the way that ranking is expressed, detailed, put forward...

You have your points, but it feels like Schumacher was taking flack for a lot of things that other drivers got away with. Sure, Schumacher didn't do himself any favours with his on track behaviour, but it was an era that he took exceptional flack, more than any other driver I remember. I was watching the Monza '98 GP the other day for example and thought of this exact thing. Check the start and spot Mika's move from 3rd place. He basically chopped and barged Villeneuve out of the track, in case you can't find it. If you get the UK video, you can hear Brundle giving Villeneuve praise for getting out of the way of a potential accident but otherwise being ok with the manoeuvre. We never get to hear that Hakkinen chopped though. Or look at the Hungarian GP in '00 where Hakkinen passes Schumacher for the lead at the start outside of the track, in a move similar to the one that Max got penalised for recently on Kimi. No one batted an eyelid.

It is quite easy to see that we are judging the driving back then with today's standards. We hear a lot that "yes, back then it was ok" and it sounds like a cheap excuse. Brundle was ok however with Hakkinen's start at the time and didn't give it a second thought. It is also true that drivers did stupid things on track, as Irvine also mentioned in his recent video series (he mentioned driving someone off the track to teach them a lesson). It was indeed, rightly or wrongly, part of the sport at the time.

I agree with you that there is a certain romanticism when someone has fallen ill or passed away before their time, which is why people tend to idolise Senna for example and forget his bad behaviour on track. But it is also true that Massa partnered a demotivated Schumacher in his last year, while he partnered Alonso in arguably his best years.

Considering how recklessly Alonso shoved Ferrari teammate Massa aside in the 1-1/2 car wide pit entry at China (2010) I'm a bit surprised he speaks so highly of FA. Watching that bonehead move was plain scary, and I'm surprised we didn't see both Ferraris in a heap...

Hamilton and Schumacher are calculated drivers. Alonso can be arrogantly selfish (and reckless) at times.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Last edited by MB-BOB on Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hamilton and Schumacher are calculated drivers. Alonso can be arrogantly selfish (and reckless) at times.

I'm not going to deny that Alonso can be arrogant, selfish and reckless at times, but are you honestly claiming that Hamilton and Schumacher have never displayed those traits?

Agreed that all the top drivers are self-absorbed. I guess you have to be that way to have championship visions. However, I can't imagine Hamilton barging past (a kind description) a teammate at an ill-designed corner into a narrow pit lane to be first at the pit box, nearly causing an accident in the process that would close pit road entrance for the whole field.

That's what I meant by "calculating" Apparently, the thought never occurred to Alonso. Massa had to go off the pit lane entrance to avoid (and submit to) him. Massa drove like a mouse the rest of the race. (Some might say he's driven like a mouse since this event.)

Had the cars come together and blocked pit entrance, I can only assume that reprimands and super license points would have been issued.

Hamilton and Schumacher are calculated drivers. Alonso can be arrogantly selfish (and reckless) at times.

I'm not going to deny that Alonso can be arrogant, selfish and reckless at times, but are you honestly claiming that Hamilton and Schumacher have never displayed those traits?

Agreed that all the top drivers are self-absorbed. I guess you have to be that way to have championship visions. However, I can't imagine Hamilton barging past (a kind description) a teammate at an ill-designed corner into a narrow pit lane to be first at the pit box, nearly causing an accident in the process that would close pit road entrance for the whole field.

That's what I meant by "calculating" Apparently, the thought never occurred to Alonso. Massa had to go off the pit lane entrance to avoid (and submit to) him. Massa drove like a mouse the rest of the race. (Some might say he's driven like a mouse since this event.)

Had the cars come together and blocked pit entrance, I can only assume that reprimands and super license points would have been issued.

You honestly can't imagine Hamilton doing that to Rosberg given the chance?

Uh, nope.

But Rosberg might do that to Hamilton, as he obviously did on that last lap in Austria.

You honestly think Hamilton would yield if he went into the pitlane side by side with Rosberg? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I don't think Hamilton would place himself in a position where the situation would occur (entering pit lane side by side)... with anyone.

BTW, if you watch the video I posted, you'll see how narrow the pit entrance is. It was a LOW percentage move, with enormous implications should it fail. Massa didn't need to yield. Alonso presumed Massa would yield... because he's just that selfish and arrogant.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Last edited by MB-BOB on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You honestly can't imagine Hamilton doing that to Rosberg given the chance?

Uh, nope.

But Rosberg might do that to Hamilton, as he obviously did on that last lap in Austria.

You honestly think Hamilton would yield if he went into the pitlane side by side with Rosberg? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I don't think Hamilton would place himself in a position where the situation would occur (entering pit lane side by side)... with anyone.

BTW, if you watch the video I posted, you'll see that Alonso didn't enter pit lane side by side with Massa. He entered pit lane 1-2 car lengths behind. A LOW percentage move, with enormous implications should it fail. Massa had the right of way, and didn't need to yield. Alonso presumed Massa would yield... because he's just that selfish and arrogant.

Sorry but I think you may need to watch it again.... They enter the pitlane at 4 seconds are at that point they are almost dead equal. Like front wing to front wing.

You honestly can't imagine Hamilton doing that to Rosberg given the chance?

Uh, nope.

But Rosberg might do that to Hamilton, as he obviously did on that last lap in Austria.

You honestly think Hamilton would yield if he went into the pitlane side by side with Rosberg? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I don't think Hamilton would place himself in a position where the situation would occur (entering pit lane side by side)... with anyone.

BTW, if you watch the video I posted, you'll see that Alonso didn't enter pit lane side by side with Massa. He entered pit lane 1-2 car lengths behind. A LOW percentage move, with enormous implications should it fail. Massa had the right of way, and didn't need to yield. Alonso presumed Massa would yield... because he's just that selfish and arrogant.

Sorry but I think you may need to watch it again.... They enter the pitlane at 4 seconds are at that point they are almost dead equal. Like front wing to front wing.

I was watching and editing my post as you made yours.

Teams are penalized for unsafe releases in pit lane. I'm surprised there are no sanctions for unsafe pit entries. I'm also surprised that the pit entry is not (by rule) a no-passing zone. Or is it?

I'm all for aggressive racing, but there is a time and place. Volunteering to put ones self in a position to have an accident that would block the road for EVERYONE is not wise. It illustrates that a different kind of thinking is at play, and not in a good way. The TV commentators and other writers at the time shared my view about this stunt, BTW.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Last edited by MB-BOB on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So who should have yielded here... Massa was fractionally ahead (like CMs) but Alonso had the line for the corner that was always going to leave him ahead.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the pit entry is considered part of the "racing" circuit. This is a Tilke circuit, where the racing surface is 50 feet wide (or more), just before pit entry. The pit entry lane immediately narrows to a single car width for a reason... to encourage orderly and safe pit entry, not wheel to wheel racing.

Had Alonso been thinking with his head instead of his gonads, he would not have entered a single car width road with Massa at all. Massa had no choice but to enter the pits, since Alonso was blocking him to the left. Alonso had options, and I suspect most drivers on the left would have backed off.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the pit entry is considered part of the "racing" circuit. This is a Tilke circuit, where the racing surface is 50 feet wide (or more), just before pit entry. The pit entry lane immediately narrows to a single car width for a reason... to encourage orderly and safe pit entry, not wheel to wheel racing.

I think it arguably shouldn't be, but it is in fact considered part of the race track until you reach the white line at the end. Until then, drivers are free to attack the entry and gain an advantage; we saw not too long ago that Vettel passed a pair of slow cars on the entry, and it was much discussed at the time whether it was legal or not (with the conclusion being that it was).

I think Alonso was completely sure that Massa would yield when he made the move, and he was right. Arrogant and selfish yes, but I don't think it wasn't calculating. It gained him position in the race, and asserted his dominance at the team in the long term.

So who should have yielded here... Massa was fractionally ahead (like CMs) but Alonso had the line for the corner that was always going to leave him ahead.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the pit entry is considered part of the "racing" circuit. This is a Tilke circuit, where the racing surface is 50 feet wide (or more), just before pit entry. The pit entry lane immediately narrows to a single car width for a reason... to encourage orderly and safe pit entry, not wheel to wheel racing.

Had Alonso been thinking with his head instead of his gonads, he would not have entered a single car width road with Massa at all. Massa had no choice but to enter the pits, since Alonso was blocking him to the left. Alonso had options, and I suspect most drivers on the left would have backed off.

Why when they don't need to? Massa could have backed off. I mean, he was never going to get round that corner ahead....

Teams are penalized for unsafe releases in pit lane. I'm surprised there are no sanctions for unsafe pit entries. I'm also surprised that the pit entry is not (by rule) a no-passing zone. Or is it?

I'm all for aggressive racing, but there is a time and place. Volunteering to put ones self in a position to have an accident that would block the road for EVERYONE is not wise. It illustrates that a different kind of thinking is at play, and not in a good way. The TV commentators and other writers at the time shared my view about this stunt, BTW.

As mentioned before, Vettel did pass someone in the pit entry a couple of years ago. I think it is an opportunistic and ballsy move. If you go for it, you better get it right. And Alonso did, so I can't kill him for that.

Well, there's also the little matter of Alonso overtaking with all 4 wheels outside the white lines as well...

If we want to be 100% fair, it could have been a Ferrari orchestrated move. Who's tyres were out first? Alonso's or Massa's? Who were they waiting for first? I honestly can't remember. Maybe they didn't want Alonso to wait behind Massa and ordered the switcheroo, as botched as it looked. But instead of making it on track they made it in the pit lane.

Pit lane entrance/exit racing seems tolerated, which is almost criminal. We've seen drivers racing at the exit, at very narrow places, which is equally as bad I guess, as it could block the track access from the pits for everyone.

3) Extra levels. Regarding Silverstone, this was one example that season of MS showing something extra in the way of performance that Alonso didn't, that being the out of the box performances. The modern fans might not be aware of an "undertake" during the re-fuelling era, but it was something that just didn't happen, it was always the person who pitted later who overtook at the pit stops because they were running light on fumes while the first pitter was fat with fuel. What MS did was rinse out his new tyres to pull off an overtake while heavy on fuel. It just wasn't done in that era between cars on similar levels. He almost did the same to Alonso earlier in Bahrain, putting in PBs on heavy fuel in the stint while Alonso was light, and was half a cars length from pulling it off, in a slower car. It was a mirror reverse of Bahrain at Nurburgring later that year, and Alonso had the chance to show what kind of teeth he had in the opposite situation, and he was utterly at Michael's mercy in the reversed situation.

Off the top of my head, Alonso did an "undertake" in Barcelona 2003. He took Barrichello and nearly took Schumacher by pumping in purple sectors on his outlap. Alonso's stationary pitstop time was even slower than the Ferrari's too.

It wasn't common for this kind of thing to happen, but it did happen. Schumacher wasn't the only driver to pull it off.